LAWS(BOM)-2001-5-3

MANISH VEDPRAKASH DHAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On May 04, 2001
MANISH VEDPRAKASH DHAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 149 of 1997 has been preferred by Manish Vedprakash Dham, while CRIMINAL Appeal No. 95 of 1997 has been preferred by Sharmin Manish Dham. Both the Appellants were put up for trial in Sessions Case No. 317 of 1995 charged of the offences under Sections 369, 364, 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302 read with Sections 120b and 201, I. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, by his judgment and Order dated 29th January, 1997, found them guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302,392,364, 369 and 201, I. P. C. Both the Appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302, I. P. C. , and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. They were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of five years under Section 392, I. P. C. , and were further sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 364, I. P. C. , and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. They were further sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 369, I. P. C. , and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Lastly, they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 201, I. P. C. , and to pay fine of Rs. 300 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Out of the fine collected, a sum of Rs. 6,000 was directed to be paid to Beena Pradeep Kulkarni (P. W. 5), the mother of Twinkle (deceased ). Manish Vedprakash Dham, the Appellant in CRIMINAL Appeal No. 149 of 1997, is the husband of Sharmin Manish Dham, the Appellant in CRIMINAL Appeal No. 95 of 1997.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the informant Leela Vincent, is the owner of the premises known as "leela Vihar" in Vadgaon-Sheri a suburb of the City of Pune. Her husband, Vincent, is a resident of Kuwait, where he is working. Leela Vincent (P. W. 1) resides in the ground floor of the premises owned by her. A portion of the 1st floor of the premises was let out to the Appellants as licensees about 4. 1/2 months before the offence. P. W. 1, Leela Vincent, has a daughter, Beena Kulkarni (P. W. 5), who resides with her husband, Pradip Kulkarni (P. W. 7) at Rasta Peth, Pune. THEy had two issues, viz. , a daughter, two years' old, named Ridhi alias Twinkle, and a son, 7 years' old, named Bhavin. Beena Kulkarni (P. W. 5) worked in a bank, and since she had to take an examination on the 30th April, 1995, she had left her daughter Twinkle with her mother, Leela Vincent (P. W. 1), about 8 days before the occurrence. On 29th April 1995, she also left her son, Bhavin, with P. W. 1, since she was preparing for her examination, and wanted her mother to look after her children during that crucial period. THE occurrence in question is said to have taken place on 29th April, 1995.

(3.) NEXT morning, they again went to the Ramwadi Police Chowky, and again requested A. P. I. Huddedar to record their complaint, but he again refused to do so. They then went to Yarawada Police Station, followed by A. P. I. Huddedar. There they met Inspector Vilas Jadhav (P. W. 28), and told him all the facts. On his direction, A. P. I. Huddedar recorded the report regarding kidnapping of Twinkle. The Appellants were arrested, but accused No. 2 was later released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, while accused No. 1 was remanded to police custody. Wireless messages were sent to different police stations, and the photograph of Twinkle was also published and pasted at various places. The Police Patil of Village Vadgaon-Sheri was informed, and he announced about the missing child by beat of drums. The statement of P. W. 2, Navina Puri, as well as of Pradip Kulkarni (P. W. 7) was recorded by A. P. I. Huddedar.